so points are won by spraying your opponent with lies he doesn't have time to rebut?

The only points that matter are persuaded voters. How many people see a plumber making a quarter million a year as average? What's median income in this country?

The idea that McCain won on points but lost on message would make sense if the match were being scored by a machine. But points are won only by winning people over to vote for you.

McCain most certainly did NOT win on points. Jesus, just because he sharpened up his performance compared to the last debate does not mean he won this one.

He frequently left lines of argument hanging and didn't hit them home with a one-liner that would have stuck. Take his health care policy for example. Obama's been attacking him hard on that issue--ISSUE--and McCain wanted to defend himself. What does he do? He complains about the ads' distortions, has a throwaway line about the $5000 tax credit, and just leaves it at that. No elaboration. Obama then comes in and defines the plan for him, and McCain is left unable to articulate his own health care plan. Embarrassing.

It typified their exchanges the whole evening. Sure, Obama didn't rebut everything McCain threw out there, but when he did, at least I could follow his line of reasoning.

The argument around here is whether Obama needs to get a bit more angry when he is being lied about. Personally, I think not. Presidents don't need to get angry; they need to speak very softly while describing the fleet of nuclear submarines hovering 500 km off shore. Mr Putin did not get angry. He sent in six divisions of armored infantry supported by artillery. You pound the table only when you lack the resources to do anything else...it's a sign of weakness, not strength.

Obama missed the key point to make about Joe the plumber:  As a small businessman, even one making more than $250,000 a year, Joe would be better off if with Obama's policies than with McCain's policies.

If prosperity is widespread, if there is a strong, healthy and well educated middle class, new construction and renovation will boom and Joe will be able to expand his business because he will have customers who will need his services.  A few extra points on his taxes at the margin will be more than offset by his added profits and, as a result, what he takes home in total.  

Grace under pressure vs. gracelessness under pressure.

In times like these, we don't need Yosemite Sam.

I also noticed that Obama didn't rebut some things, maybe for lack of opportunity.  I believe the candidate who answers questions 1st is determined by a coin toss? What this means then is the other candidate will get in the "last word."  I was under the impression that McCain got in a lot of "last words" while all Obama could do was say "not true" while McCain spoke.  I think he wanted to continue rebutting, but then Bob Schieffer quickly said "next question" which was often on a different subject.  Does anyone think getting to go last provides an advantage, like batting at the bottom of innings?

At the same time, if Obama had strayed too many times from the debate format, he may have looked out of control, like some kid shouting that's not fair! (even if it isn't).  He crystallized his debate persona when he started his response to campaign negativity with "I guess we can all talk about hurt feelings."  So he ends up sacrificing some punches to look more reasonable and presidential.  I'd say it's a good trade up.  In choosing what best to respond to, and not engaging with McCain on every last scurrilous misrepresentation, he's personifying an adult/child dichotomy, and shows he's of a different class.  Parents don't acknowledge their kids' every last whim.  And no one will bother to rebut the invective of a homeless person off the street.

I agree Obama looked fried at some points.  And, McCain at times was just losing it, whether through incoherence or angry gestures.  Obama's response re Ayers was brilliant. "Your own advisers have publicly said that when the subject is the economy, change the subject. Your campaign has been focusing on Ayers these last three weeks."  McCain's gave a non-reply that repeated his original allegations without taking into account what Obama said.  It's like some kid with his hand in the cookie jar who says his hand isn't in the cookie jar.

Another brilliant moment for Obama was when he talked about Sarah Palin's commitment to autism and special needs.  He damned her with faint praise.  If those are your main issues, by all means vote for her, he seems to be saying.  And he once again shows he's out of her league by not going negative on her.